IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTOPHER HEFFRAN : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

JOHN MELLINGER, et al. : NO. 05-2229

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fullam, Sr. J. September 17, 2007

Plaintiff, Christopher Heffran, a prisoner at SCIGraterford, became sickened by fumes while working in the

prison’s shoe factory. Plaintiff alleges that various prison

officials ignored his well-being and failed to render the working

conditions safe or provide him with timely and appropriate

medical care. After extensive discovery, the remaining

defendants have moved for summary judgment. Both plaintiff and

defendants have submitted well-reasoned legal briefs and

voluminous exhibits. I conclude that because the actions or

inactions of Defendants amounted at most to negligence, the case

must be dismissed.

The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff,

reveal that the manufacturing process, in particular the process

for making rubber soles, generates potentially harmful vapors. 

For a time, the exhaust system failed to vent the fumes

adequately. There were attempts to pinpoint the problem, with no

immediate result. After several months the ventilation system

Case 2:05-cv-02229-JF Document 75 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 3
2

was repaired in anticipation of an air quality test and the test

revealed levels in one worker above OSHA limits. During the time

the ventilation system malfunctioned plaintiff repeatedly

requested respirators, but the workers in the shoe factory were

not fitted for the respirators until after plaintiff transferred

to work in the hobby shop. Plaintiff also alleges that when the

workers’ original protective jumpsuits frayed, they were given

inferior replacements that did not keep off the dust. When he

became ill from the dust and fumes, plaintiff received what he

perceived to be untimely and insufficient care.

I do not accept defendants’ arguments that by working in the

shoe factory instead of transferring to another prison job

sooner, plaintiff volunteered to be exposed to potentially

dangerous conditions. Nonetheless, on the record before me,

there is insufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the

actions of prison officials rose above the level of simple

negligence. See Bagola v. Kindt, 131 F.3d 632, 645(7 Cir. th

1997). Although the prison officials could have acted more

promptly, the evidence does not support a finding that they were

deliberately indifferent to the conditions in the shoe factory or

to plaintiff’s health.

An order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-02229-JF Document 75 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTOPHER HEFFRAN : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

JOHN MELLINGER, et al. : NO. 05-2229

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 17 day of September 2007, upon consideration th

of the Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and

the response thereto,

IT IS hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Judgment

is ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS, John Mellinger, Jacob

Caracappa, Gerald Arasin, Mark Atkinson, Mark okolski, and

Correctional Industries, and AGAINST PLAINTIFF, Christopher

Heffran. The Clerk is directed to mark the case-file CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:05-cv-02229-JF Document 75 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 3